Hello everybody,
in my humble oppinion there so much complicate thougths about the matter of Maedhros. I think that doubt to the relation of names, if Maedhros is changed for Maedron so it must be changed Amros to Amron. But for me Maedhros (Maedros) is right here.

I am confused about Maelor, is it the last form?, correct me but i remember it only appears in the lay reccomenced, written in 1950, and for example in TSOF appears Maglor. Why do you name him so?

About Maelor: There is also a note written by Tolkien into a copy of the second edition of The Lord of the Rings that names the second son of Fëanor Maelor. Since the second edition was printed in 1966 the note must be later. But The Shibboleth of Fëanor is from 1968. So I agree to you that the natural interpretation of the evidence we have is, that Maelor was a change that Tolkien later skipt. But up to now we thought that Maelro was the last idea of Tolkien and therefore used it in our version. The change back to Maglor is not yet aproved, but I think it most likely.

The note with Maedros and Maelor in Tolkien's Return of the King includes a reference to Umbarto being burned, and if it's the case, as CJRT thinks, that this idea (of Umbarto dying) arose in the course of Tolkien's notes on the names of the sons of Feanor (given at the end of The Shibboleth of Feanor) -- does this not open up the possibility, at least, that the 'Maelor note' (RK note) follows The Shibboleth?

I'm not trying to muddy the waters again but I thought that was part of the point Findegil made to me earlier concerning Maedros, when he wrote (about the Maedron note): 'But that does not make it necessarly the last mention of the charachter of Feanors eldest son.'

In other words, now we don't know which is the latest (the Shibboleth is technically 1968 or later according to Hammond and Scull) of the following:

A) The Shibboleth of Feanor and notes on the names of Feanor's sons: Maedros, Maglor

B) The Maedron note (given in notes to TPOR): Maedron (arguably later than Shibboleth at least)

C) Or The Return of the King note: Maedros and Maelor

And if so, some other criterion might need to be raised, in order to choose. And I want to stress again that the change Maedros to Maedron doesn't necessarily mean Amros must become Amron. This is just a further idea that I think is merely one possibilty among others.

If pressed to choose I would choose Maedros because of the doubt involved with the dating, but also because one could then bring along all the other '-russa, -ros' names that certainly agree with this conception, if you take my meaning.

As for Maglor, I like it better, it agrees with the published Silmarillion (not that that's necessarily a factor here) and it also hails from the conception in which Maedros and Amros appear -- and in a text in which the names are certainly considered from a linguistic standpoint (thus certainly focused on in some measure).

But I am biased simply because I like Maglor and its meaning... and I'm not constructing a Silmarillion, merely rambling on about a subject I'm interested in.

The note with Maedros and Maelor in Tolkien's Return of the King includes a reference to Umbarto being burned

I didn't observed that! But you are right it means we have an additional info on the timing. We have (not considering the the order of writing by JRR Tolkien):

- a) The Lay of Leithian Recommenced (certainly post-1955 probably much later): Both, Maglor and Maelor, used but finally settled on Maelor

- b) Late change to Later Quenta Silmarillion 2: Maglor changed to Maelor

- c) The Shibboleth of Feanor and notes on the names of Feanor's sons: Maedros, Maglor

- d) The Return of the King note: Maedros and Maelor

- e) The Maedron note (given in notes to TPOR): Maedron

From the names only I would orer these text d), c), a) & b) and last e). That is possible but does not ring true to me entirely. I rather think that Tolkien changed his mind (probaly more than once) about Maelor and returned in the end to Maglor. But then this is based on no fact.

Quote:

And I want to stress again that the change Maedros to Maedron doesn't necessarily mean Amros must become Amron.

I agree to this. We can for sure use Maedron beside Amros. If we chose Maedron we might be forced to do so because I do not see an alternative for Amors that was given by Tolkien. Beside that, Maedron is not equivalent to Maedros in my oppioin as explained above.

I wanted to bring this thread back up because it seems to me that the names of Feanor's two eldest sons were never resolved.

For my part, I am still inclined, as I was a few years ago, to go with 'Maedros' and 'Maglor'.

As to the first, I am still quite convinced that the change to 'Maedron' was associated with the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros', which was rejected. It seems clear to me that the motivation for the change was elimination of the RUS- stem. Though this half of the proposal does not run afoul of 'Cair Androst', I think that without suitable replacements for the other RUS- names (e.g. Ambarussa/Amros, Russandol), it must be considered a projected change that cannot be implemented. It is true that if we were to adopt 'Maedron', we wouldn't be forced to alter 'Amros' - but if we can't alter 'Amros', then as I see it, the entire reason for the change to 'Maedron' (i.e. getting rid of RUS-) is invalidated.

'Maglor' vs. 'Maelor' is a less complex problem. Here we simply cannot ascertain with any certainty which form was later. In such a case, I would prefer to be conservative and use the better-attested form 'Maglor'.

As already written above, I agree that we should use Maglor, because I consider Maelor to be a change later skipt by Tolkien as atested in On Sindarizing of the names.

On Maedros/ Maedron: I don't think that the changes is directly conected to The problem of ROS. Since we have some names ending in -ron elements: Sauron, Daeron and changes that lead to similar names Tauros/Tauron, Bauglir/Baugron, I would use Maedron.

On Maedros/ Maedron: I don't think that the changes is directly conected to The problem of ROS. Since we have some names ending in -ron elements: Sauron, Daeron and changes that lead to similar names Tauros/Tauron, Bauglir/Baugron, I would use Maedron.

I don't deny that 'Maedron' is valid Sindarin (as is shown by the names you quote). Rather, the twofold question is:

1. Was the change of 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' motivated by the elimination of the RUS- stem?

2. Are there instances of 'Maedros' that post-date the 'Maedron' note?

If the answer to either of these is 'yes', then we must stick with 'Maedros'. And while I don't think we can be absolutely certain about either question, it seems to me fairly likely that the answer to 1 is yes, and quite possible that the answer to 2 is yes (as Galin pointed out earlier, we have no good way of dating the Maedron note vs. the Return of the King note).

Perhaps I haven't fully explained why I think the change to 'Maedron' is likely to have been motivated by deletion of the RUS- stem. As I see it, we have the following evidence:

1. In 'The Problem of Ros', Tolkien expresses dissatisfaction with both the ROS- and RUS- stems (noting not only the homophony as a problem, but also the similarity of RUS- to Indo-European 'red' words)

2. Although the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros' (of changing ROS- to a Beorian stem) does not in itself necessitate changes to the RUS- words, the fact that he wrote 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter' in the margin indicates that he considered a change of 'Maedros' to be part of the solution.

3. 'Maedron' occurs in a note post-dating 'The Problem of Ros'.

It is at the very least easy enough to read this evidence, taken together, as Tolkien reluctantly changing 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' in order to eliminate the 'RUS' stem.

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Yes but the failure there had to do with the "other ros" (the ros in andros) being Beorian, so Aiwendil is suggesting (as I read it) that since that failed, at some point Tolkien took up his thought -- his thought in the note that goes with The Problem of ROS -- that perhaps the other ros (red-brown haired) could be dealt with...

... thus the later Maedron note.

While it is possible that Maedron reflects the loss of -russa/-ros (red-brown haired), we can't be sure. The note merely seems to say that JRRT "now" will alter Maedros to Maedron, but we have no further information there, and are left with what this might mean, if anything, concerning the Amros brothers.

It's also possible that the same note (the Problem of ROS note) in which Tolkien thinks that Maedros is so long established that it would be difficult to alter, plays some part in his "returning" to Maedros in the note in a copy of The Lord of the Rings.

If that's what Tolkien did, that is

My thought is that a choice of Maedron comes with a number of questions... while the choice of Maedros provides the Quenya and Sindarin names for all three brothers, as well as the detail behind these names, that these brothers had a measure of red-brown, or coppery coloured hair.

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

Not that you are necessarily going to use all of this information for this reconstructed Silmarillion! But anyway, if one is forced to choose, I mean.

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Well, we don't know when Tolkien wrote the 'Maedron' note; nor do we know when he wrote, 'Most of this fails' on the manuscript of 'Ros'. It seems to me perfectly plausible that the 'Maedron' note pre-dated the realization that the proposed 'Ros' solution would not work, even if it apparently post-dated 'The Problem of Ros' itself (which Christopher Tolkien presents no actual evidence for, though I grant that he is probably right).

But, as Galin points out, the fact that Tolkien rejected the idea to make ROS- a Beorian stem doesn't necessarily mean that he no longer wanted to get rid of RUS-.

Apart from these considerations, though, I think Galin is right:

Quote:

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

We don't know which was later. (I don't think the analogy to other '-on' names is conclusive evidence that 'Maedron' is later; after all, we have 'Maedros' as late as 1969 or 1970, while for example 'Tauros' had already become 'Tauron' as early as the early 1950s.) And given that we don't know, I think 'Maedros' is preferable.

Here's a revised list of general changes, arranged alphabetically. For ease of reading, I've removed the quotes from the discussions about those changes, instead supplying links to the relevant threads. One thing I realized as I was doing this is that we never actually came to a decision about the name 'Gwarestrin'.

{Côr} [Túna] or [Tirion] per QS77. In BoLT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the City and the hill on which it stands. It should be changed to 'Tirion' when it refers to the city and 'Tuna' when it refers to the hill.

{Cranthir}[Caranthir]

{Cranthor}[Caranthir] per QS77

{Crisaegrim}[Crissaegrim] per QS77

{Cristhorn}[Cirith Thoronath] per QS77

{Cûm an-Idrisaith}[Cûm-nan-Arasaith] (Mound of Avarice) per Q30. This may need linguistic revision.

Dagor {Vreged-sir}[Bragollach] per QS77

{Dairon}[Daeron] per QS77

{Damrod}[Amrod] per QS77.

{Díriel}[Amros] per Shibboleth and Ros

{Dorlas}[Darlas] per WH note 55.

{Dorlomin}[Dor-Lómin] for consistency with UT and QS77

{Dor-na-Fauglith}[Dor-nu-Fauglith] per QS77

{dragon-helm}[Dragon-helm] just for consistency.

{dwarfen}[dwarven] per Tolkiens general use of the old plural when refering to Dwarves.

{Eärendel}[Eärendil] per QS77and LR.

{Egnor}[Aegnor] per QS77 (except where it refers to Beren's father)

{Egnor}[Barahir] per QS77 when it refers to Beren’s father.

{Elfinesse}[Elvenesse] per Tolkien's general change of Elfin to Elven from earlier to later writings.

{Erchamion}[Erchamon] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Decided in this thread.

Ereinion: No change.

{Ermabwed}[Erchamon] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’.

{Finellach}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Finrod}[Finarfin] per QS77 when it refers to Felagund's father.

{Flinding go-Fuilin}[Gwindor, Guilin’s son] this seems to be covered by the two entries 'Flinding' and 'Fuilin' but since in alliterative verse Flinding and Fuilin are both in the alliteration it is here surely necessary to change the alliteration.

{Flinding}[Gwindor] per QS77 but this change does only occur in the verse and Flinding is often used in the alliteration. Thus each line needs some special solution.

{Fuilin}[Guilin] per QS77 but this change does only occur in the verse and Fuilin is often used in the alliteration. Thus each line needs some special solution.

{Gelmir}[Faramir] when referring to the companion of Arminas, per Narn plot synopses. Discussed in this thread.

{Glingal}[Laurelin] when it refers to the tree in Valinor per QS77

{Glingol}[Glingal] per QS77.

{Glommweaver}[Ungoliant] and {Ungoliantë}[Ungoliant] per QS77

{Glorund}[Glaurung] per Wanderings of Húrin.

{Gnome}[Elf] or [Noldo] and {Gnomes}[Elves] or [Noldor]. “Gnomes” was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Elves except where a general reference to Elves would not fit, as in “the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not.” Then use Noldor.

{Gods}[Valar] Tolkien almost entirely drops "Gods" as a English translation in later writings.

{Gorthu}[Sauron] or [Gorthaur] per LR.

{Gumlin}[Galdor] per HoME XI

Gwarestrin:

{Gwendelin} [Melian] per QS77.

{Gwenniel}[Melian] per Q30.

{Gyrth-I-Guinar}[Dor Firn-i-Guinar] per QS77

{Haladin}[Halethrim] when referring to the general populace of Haleth’s people, per ‘The Wanderings of Hurin’.

{Haleth}[Halmir] when it refers to Haleth the Hunter per LQ

{Haud-in-Nengin}[Haudh-en-Nirnaeth] per QS77

{Hisilómë}[Hithlum] per S.

{House of the Swan}[House of Hador] when it refers to Tuor’s ancestry. The sign of Annael remains the Swan.

{Hundar}[Haldir] per LQ when it refers to Halmir's son.

{Hundor}[Haldir] per LQ.

{i•Guilwarthon}[Dor Firn-i-Guinar] per QS77.

{Ing}[Ingwë] per QS77

{Inglor}[Finrod] or [Felagund] per LR

{Inwe}[Ingwë] per QS77

{Indrafangs}[dwarves of Belegost] when not referring to the dwarves of Moria per QS77

{Isfin}[Aredhel] per QS77

{Karkaras} (Knife-fang)}[Carcharoth ('the Red Maw')] per QS77.

{Kôr} [Túna] or [Tirion] per QS77. In BoLT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the City and the hill on which it stands. It should be changed to 'Tirion' when it refers to the city and 'Tuna' when it refers to the hill.

{Lalaith}[Lalaeth] per genealogical tables associated with LQ2. Discussed in this thread.